Exxon is suing Californians over new laws requiring corporate climate disclosure
ExxonMobil filed a suit in the Federal District challenging two California laws that would have required the oil giant to report greenhouse emissions from the use of its products around the world.
The 30-page complaint, filed Friday in the US District Court for the Eastern District of California, says the messages violate the company’s preferred message by requiring that “exxonmobil believes the speech is misleading and defamatory.”
Senate Bill 253, the Act of 2023 known as the Climate Corporate Dataability Act, requires the California Air Resources Board to receive regulations for this year to be $1 billion by $1 billion for their “Scopes.”
Scale 1 Emissions are defined as greenhouse gas emissions from the company and its subsidiaries. Scope 2 includes indirect outputs, such as electricity purchased by the company. Scope 3 is Emions from the Company Repures Chain, including waste, water use, business travel and employee travel, which account for 75% of the greenhouse gas emissions of a multi-industry company. Reporting begins in 2026 for Scopes 1 and 2 and in 2027 for Scope 3.
The Attorney General’s Office and Exxon did not respond to requests for comment Saturday. Tara Gallegos, spokeswoman for Gov. Gavin Newlom, said the laws have been upheld in court “and we continue to be confident.”
“It’s really shocking that one of the biggest polluters in the world would go against the obvious,” Gallegos said.
According to the complaint, the Air Resources Board requested public input into the rulemaking process but never responded to ExxonMobil’s September letter outlining disagreements over proposed reporting methods.
ExxonMobil argues that the legal history shows that the bills seek to “put a disparate blame on companies like ExxonMobil for being big and for the dirty purpose of raising the public,” according to the lawsuit.
“California can believe that companies that meet revenue limits are responsible for climate change, but the 1st Amendment’s classification of enforcement in enforcing that view is unfair,” the complaint said.
Exxonmobile gas station in Los Angeles.
(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)
Michael Gerrard, a leading climate expert at Columbia University in Columbia University, responding to the message from the times that exxon showed “with caution related to the climate.
“These laws do not require Exxon to make any changes in the way they produce, transport, sell or sell oil. They are about information that Exxon does not want to provide to the public,” said Gerrard. “If exxon thinks any information could be misleading, it is free to explain why readers are able to draw their own conclusions.”
Supporters of the law say it discourages green streaming, or marketing that highlights a company’s efforts to reduce climate heat emissions.
“We need the full picture to make the deep exit that scientists have told us is necessary to avoid the negative effects of climate change,” Senstan’s author, Sen Francisco), said at the time of its discovery.
A separate bill, SB 261, requires companies with more than $500 million in revenue to disclose climate-related financial risks.
In its rules, Exxonmobil said the law will force us “to participate in granurar’s thinking about unknown future developments and to publicly distribute its predictions.”
Case names like miracles in California Attry. Gen. Rob Bonta, Chairman of the board of Lauren Sanchez Resources, Chief Executive Officer Steven S. Cliff S. Cliff and two executives in the industrial sectors.
